Page 630 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I wrote back and said, “Please elaborate.” That did not occur. So do not say that they wrote to me outlining their concerns. They did not. I responded and asked them to.
In relation to Dr Gallagher’s situation, I would ask Mr Hanson to go back and ask her what was the reason she gave for leaving. You might be interested in her answer. I do not want to breach her confidence on that issue, but go and check. Mr Hanson has decided that Dr Gallagher resigned after her complaint was not dealt with or insinuated that because her complaint was not dealt with she resigned. I became aware of Dr Gallagher’s concerns on Monday morning. That was the first time and that is why we need a review into the processes around this, which is what I have already agreed to.
I agreed in correspondence to the interim chief executive on these two reviews on the weekend, prior to meeting with the doctors, based on information that I had received and meetings I had held with a number of people between Wednesday and Sunday, when I signed off a letter to the interim chief executive. When I met with the doctors on Monday morning they agreed that that was a suitable process to follow. They asked me for time frames for commencement. I gave them a commitment around ensuring, hopefully, that we will have terms of reference determined by the end of this week and that both processes will be well underway within four weeks, which is the time that they gave me.
In relation to my comments about difficult relations in obstetrics, I think Mr Hanson did not understand what I was saying. The difficulty in the relationship, dating back a number of years, is across the sector; it is across the private and public sector. I was not saying there is a war in obstetrics at TCH. I never said that. There are difficulties that date back a number of years that all parties agree exist. My belief, when we finalise these terms of reference, is that we need to look at obstetric services in the public and private sector as well. We need to examine what is happening at Calvary public, Calvary private, John James and the Canberra Hospital. If we are going to bring the obstetric community together, I do not believe this can just be a finger-pointing exercise at TCH.
In relation to Dr Foote representing the college, he is certainly the chair of the local branch. I have not received confirmation from the college nationally that he represents their interests. He also represents a number of the doctors who are having the finger pointed at through this process. So when you say, “He is representing the obstetric community,” he is not representing the entire obstetric community here. In fact, there are a number of members of the college who have concerns—let us leave it at that—at the way things are being handled here by the college. I do not know that you can say that a member of the national college, which is the representative body of obstetricians, is putting forward this view as strongly as Dr Foote is.
I have had a long and very positive working relationship with Dr Foote. From my time as minister he was the president of the AMA. I have always found him very reasonable to deal with. But I have to say that I think some of the ways in which this issue has been handled have been unfair to other parties. I do not care about me. I can stand up for myself. I have got a public forum. I can defend the words I have used, the language I have used, the comments I have made. But there are people who are not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video